1) 11 rights of a person during custodial
investigation (expanded Miranda Right
Doctrine) ( People vs Mahinay Feb. 15, 2010)
--
2) Rights of an accused in a criminal
proceeding (sec 14)
Section 14, Article III, 1987 Philippine
Constitution
(1)No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved,
(3) and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel,
(4) to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him,
(5) to have a speedy,
(6) impartial,
(7) and public trial,
(8) to meet the witnesses face to face,
(9) and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused provided that he has
been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
(10) Right against self incrimination
(11) Right against double jeopardy
3) 10 factors of granting bail? (Villasenor v
Abanio)
Guidelines in fixing bail: (1) ability of the
accused to give bail; (2)) nature of the offense;
(3)penalty for the offense charged; (4) character
andreputation of the accused; (5) health of the
accused;(6) character and strength of
the evidence; (7)probability of the accused
appearing at trial; (8)forfeiture of other bonds;
(9) whether the accusedwas a fugitive from
justice when arrested; and (10) if the accused is
under bond for appearance at trial inother cases
4) Requites for valid confession (People v
Samolde)
To be admissible in evidence, an extrajudicial
confession must be: (i) voluntary; (ii) made with
the assistance of competent and independent
counsel; (iii) express; and (iv) in writing. A
suspects confession, whether verbal or non-
verbal, when taken without the assistance of
counsel, without a valid waiver of such
assistance, regardless of the absence of
coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily
given, is inadmissible in evidence, even if
appellants confession were gospel truth.
(PEOPLE VS. DANO, G.R. NO. 117690, 339
SCRA 515, SEPT. 1, 2000; PEOPLE VS.
SAMOLDE, G.R. NO. 128551, 336 SCRA 632,
JUL. 31, 2000).
5) 3 instances when accused must be
present in a criminal prosecution
1. During arraignment
2. Promulgation of the decision and
3. When he is to be identified by the witnesses
for the prosecution, he must be present
6) Requisites for waiver of presence during a
criminal prosecution
In Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission "the
accused may waive his presence in the criminal
proceedings except at the stages where
identification of his person by the prosecution
witnesses is necessary. The accused will waiver
in any case where the accused agrees explicitly
and unequivocally in writing signed by him or
personally manifests clearly and indubitably in
open court and such manifestation is recorded,
that whenever a prosecution witness mentions a
name by which the accused is known, the
witness is referring to him and to no one else."
7.a.) Right against self incrimination
Generally, it applies only to testimonial
compulsion. As such, forcing a person to give a
sample of his urine to determine whether a
woman is pregnant (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41
Phil. 62); whether a person is suffering from
sexually transmitted disease (US vs. Tang Teng,
23 Phil. 145) or under the influence of prohibited
drugs (PEOPLE VS. BANIHIT, G.R. NO.
132045, 339 SCRA 86, AUG. 25, 2000;
PEOPLE VS. CONTINENTE, G.R. NOS.
100801- 02, 339 SCRA 1, AUG. 25, 2000) does
not violate the persons right against self-
incrimination. Likewise forcing one to try a pair
of shoes, pants or shirt does not fall under the
above proscription.
7.b.) Does the right against self-incrimination
applicable to civil and administrative cases
also?
Yes but unlike in criminal cases where the
accused could not be presented by the
prosecution and his right not to take the witness
stand is absolute, an adverse party in a civil or
administrative cases may be presented by the
other party but could refuse to answer only if the
question propounded calls for an incriminatory
answer.
8) When is a penalty considered cruel and
unusual (p v estoista)
(P vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647). It is only when the
punishment is shocking to the conscience of the
community and disproportionate to the offense
charged that the penalty becomes cruel and
unusual. In fact, the Supreme Court held in
ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
that death through Lethal Injection is the most
humane way of implementing the death penalty.
9) Requisites of double jeopardy
There is double jeopardy when there is: [1] valid
complaint of information; [2] filed in a court of
competent jurisdiction; [3] the accused was
validly arraigned; and [4] the accused was
convicted or acquitted, or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused. (PEOPLE VS.
ALMARIO, 355 SCRA 1)
9a) When must an accused be present in
trial?
During arraignment, promulgation of the
decision and when he is to be identified by the
witnesses for the prosecution, he must be
present.
9b) Requisites to waive right to be present in
trial
During arraignment, promulgation of the
decision and when he is to be identified by the
witnesses for the prosecution, he must be
present. However, he can validly waive his
presence after arraignment when he state in
open court or in an affidavit that whenever a
witness mentions his name during the
presentation of the prosecutions evidence, he
admits that he is the one being referred to.
(Aquino vs. Military Commission, 63 SCRA 546;
P vs. Judge, 125 SCRA 269)
10)When is there inordinate delay?
In JAIME BERNAT VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, May
20, 2004, it was held that the right to speedy trial
is violated only if the proceedings were attended
by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.
The determination of whether the delays are of
said nature is relative and cannot be based on
mere mathematical reckoning of time. Particular
regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case. As held in the case of DE LA PENA VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN, certain factors shall be
considered and balanced to determine if there is
delay, as follows: Length of the delay; Reasons
for the delay; Assertion or failure to assert such
right by the accused; and Prejudiced caused by
the delay. There is no violation of the right to
speedy disposition of his case because
petitioner failed to assert his constitutional right
to a speedy disposition of his case. During the 8-
year period prior to April 19, 2002, petitioner did
not complain about the long delay in deciding his
case.
17 and 18) two types of immunity (Galman v
Pamaran)
Immunity statutes may be generally classified
into two: one, which grants "use immunity"; and
the other, which grants what is known as
"transactional immunity." The distinction
between the two is as follows: "Use immunity"
prohibits use of witness' compelled testimony
and its fruits in any manner in connection with
the criminal prosecution of the witness. On the
other hand, "transactional immunity" grants
immunity to the witness from prosecution for an
offense to which his compelled testimony
relates." (Galman v Pamaran)
19) Requisites of trial in absentia
The requisites of a valid trial in absentia are the
following: The accused was duly arraigned; The
accused was notified of the hearing; and The
accuseds absence [during the trial] is
unjustifiable
24) Supervening Fact Doctrine?
It simply provides that an accuseds conviction
shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an
offense which necessarily includes the offense
charged in the former complaint or information
when the graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge or that
the facts constituting the graver charge became
known only or were discovered after a plea was
entered in the former complaint or information.
(Section 7, Rule 117, 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure; P vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260; P vs.
Villasis, 46 O.G. 268; Melo vs. People, 85 Phil.
766; P vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 712; P vs. Adil, 76
SCRA 462; P. vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601; and P
vs. City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637
25a) Requisites of Ex-Post Facto Law
Only if the law sought to be applied is a [1]
criminal law or penal in nature; [2] it is applied
retroactively; and that [3] it is prejudicial to the
accused. Otherwise, the same may not be
invoked as when the questioned law involves
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is
not a penal law. Ex post facto law prohibits the
retrospectivity of penal laws. RA 8249 is not a
penal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction
which is not penal in character. (PANFILO M.
LACSON VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL., ROMEO
ACOP & FRANCISCO ZUBIA, JR., G.R. No.
128096, January 20, 1999)
25b) what are the 7 features of Ex-Post Facto
Law
In order that a law is an ex post facto law, the
same must be one a. which makes an act
done criminal before the passing of the law and
which was innocent when committed, and
punishes such action; b. which aggravates a
crime or makes it greater than when it was
committed; c. which changes the punishment
and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when it was committed; d.
which alters the legal rules of evidence and
receives less or different testimony than the law
required a the time of the commission of the
offense in order to convict the defendant; e.
every law which, in relation to the offense or its
consequences, alters the situation of a person to
his disadvantage; f. that which assumes to
regulate civil rights and remedies but in effect
imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which
when done was lawful; g. deprives a person
accused of a crime of some lawful protection to
which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or
a proclamation of amnesty (KAY VILLEGAS
KAMI, 35 SCRA 429; MEJIA VS. PAMARAN,
160 SCRA 457; TAN VS. BARRIOS, 190 SCRA
686; PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 211
SCRA 241).